Skip to main content

Who is Phyllis Schlafly? Who are Ron Paul’s supporters?

Here is one of the best summaries on Phyllis Schlafly, Ron Paul and Paul’s supporters.

on November 4, 2007 at 1:35 am5 Jim Palmisano
Who is Phyllis Schlafly? What does this self-proclaimed political guru know about anything?

I prefer to read for myself and I tend to understand things fairly well on my own.

So who is she and why would anyone put any credence to her thoughts?

This should be interesting.

Jim Palmisano

on November 22, 2007 at 11:14 pm7 Doug Parris
I really like Ron Paul, myself, but the posts, here, actually illustrate some of the problems he has winning the nomination.

Palmisano (at 5) asks “who is Phyllis Schlafly?” and calls her a “self-proclaimed” political guru. This illustrates the “johnny-come-lately” nature of much of Paul’s support. Mr. Palmisano is obviously very ignorant of the history of the conservative movement and disrespectful of its leaders, the people who have been fighting for many decades for Constitutional Government. Calling her a “self-prclaimed” guru is just dishonest. She has never spent time attempting to elevate herself, but became prominent, probably before Palmisano was born, fighting for what is right, and has never wavered.

Palmisano, touting his own abilities, says, “I prefer to read for myself and I tend to understand things fairly well…” but does not know who the greatest enemy of feminazism in history is.

Painter (at 6) claims that Ron Paul has the “most intense and zealous supporters.” They certainly are zealous. But that has both an upside and a downside. I think most people attribute Paul’s lead in the non-scientific polls to that zeal ~ a small number of Paul supporters mobilizing to jam phone lines or vote often when that is possible. It’s a good strategy, and grassroots action, like Paul has generated, is about all a “second-tier” candidate can do to progress, but when the results don’t equate to similar numbers in scientific polls (that only count one vote from one person), and Paul’s zealous supporters try to cry “conspiracy” it undercuts credibility ~ and makes it easier to ignore both real results and real bias when it does occur -and it occurs often.

As pointed out, Ron Paul scores high among liberals for a Republican, and this is, undoubtedly, a direct result of his opposition to the war. I’ve talked to some of them and it’s the only thing they know about him. These are the people who have been tearing down Constitutional governent for about a hundred years. It undercuts his support among seasoned Constitutionalists. He is also the only Republican Candidate, in all the debates so far, to have been, literally, booed by a Republican Audience. He is right, generally, on the Constitution, but wrong, on some crucial Foreign Policy regarding primeval Islam and wrong in the mind of most Republicans on that issue.

Paul’s positives far outweigh his negatives on the grand scale of substance, but his negatives are very high-profile and seem to me to be unfairly counterbalancing his positives on the grand scale of viability.

But I have to give the title of “the “most intense and zealous supporters” to the members of the People’s Temple who proved the intensity of their zeal for Jim Jones at “Jonestown,” Guyana on Nov. 18, 1978. It’s not always a good thing.

This thread (above) is being posted, by the way, on our mirror-site, REAGANWING.COM. It was put up only as a backup to the actual site in case of emergency. In the future, post at WWW.THEREAGANWING.COM and you will stand less chance of being ignored. This story, at that site is:

I prefer Ron Paul over Huckabee, Romney, and McCain, who give no indication of being authentic conservatives and over Giulaini, who gives no indication of trying to even LOOK conservative. I will be excitedly voting for Paul, if and when he wins the GOP nomination.


Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk